Is it consistent with other envisaged EU =
legislationto control acidifying=20
polluants?

As outlined in the previous article, a properly-designed EU=20
Acidification Strategy should not be restricted only to a =
consideration of=20
the available emission control options and the associated costs to =
fully=20
achieve environmental targets over the next 10 to 15 years. =
Imprecisions=20
of modelling, inaccurate predictions of energy consumption and =
energy=20
mixes, diminishing returns when approaching the 100 per cent =
ecosystem=20
protection level and limited financial resources suggest a =
step-wise=20
approach where additional legislation is only decided and =
implemented once=20
the actual improvement of the environment over the next years =
deviates=20
from the path of ultimately meeting the environmental targets by =
2010.

The most positive feature of the Acidification Strategy is its=20
objective to assign overall reduction goals to individual =
countries. This=20
approach would ensure that countries are not being restricted from =
designing a legislative package of measures which is most =
cost-effective=20
for their specific national situations.

To this end it is confusing that the Commission is currently =
planning=20
for a series of additional directives which attempt to enact =
EU-wide=20
legislation on the very same pollutants addressed by the =
Acidification=20
Strategy. The diagram below shows some of this overlapping =
legislation in=20
the context of the =91umbrella legislation=92 of the Acidification =
Strategy=20
and the Air Quality Framework Directive. While the need for the=20
harmonization of vehicle emission standards and transport fuel =
quality is=20
justified, uniform legislation on emissions from stationary =
sources is=20
counterproductive to the principles of the Acidification Strategy =
which=20
leaves maximum flexibility to Member States to decide on their =
most=20
cost-effective control strategies in line with the subsidiarity=20
principle.

The following example might illustrate the problems arising =
from this=20
=91legislative mix=92. The Commission has recently agreed on a =
proposal for a=20
directive to limit the sulphur content of heavy fuel oil at 1 per =
cent=20
mass maximum. Although the proposal allows certain derogations =
from this=20
requirement, if given emission limit values in the flue gas are =
met, it=20
nevertheless restricts individual Member States=92 flexibility. =
For example,=20
the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) has granted Member =
States the=20
right to regulate emissions from existing Large Combustion Plants =
until=20
2003 on a national basis, provided overall emission ceilings are =
met. The=20
new initiative (which plans to have the liquid fuels sulphur limit =
in=20
place by 1999) will interfere with this existing national =
legislation. It=20
is worth mentioning that the current draft proposal for the =
revision of=20
the LCPD is also envisaging emission ceilings for all (new and =
existing)=20
plants, leaving it again to Member States to determine how to =
achieve=20
these ceilings.

In summary

A rational cost-effective approach of limiting emissions from=20
stationary sources by setting overall national emission reduction =
targets=20
is not compatible with the parallel implementation of specific =
EU-uniform=20
emission reduction measures addressing the same sources. If the =
Community=20
should insist on parallel legislation then it should at least =
ensure that=20
the sequence of events is correct; the agreement on Acidification =
Strategy=20
targets should be followed by compatible national reduction =
targets for=20
LCP emissions. In a final step, Member States should have the =
right to fix=20
emission limit values for the various categories of existing LCPs =
and=20
leave it completely to the operator of the plants to opt for the =
proper=20
mix of measures (low sulphur fuels, flue gas desulphurization, =
etc.).=20